[linux-elitists] Spam spam spam spam
Sat Feb 19 20:29:12 PST 2005
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 08:40 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 09:35:31AM -0500, Aaron Sherman (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > Please stop dismissing what I say without responding to it in any way.
> > You're flaming here, but I don't see any comprehension on your side
> > either. Are you just trolling for my ire? If so, I suppose I've fallen
> > for it. Congrats.
> OK, I'll try taking it down a couple of notches....
Thanks. I'll make the same attempt.
> First: I was responding to a strong insinuation on your part that the
> SBL was listing vast swathes of netspace on capricious definitions of
> "spam support organizations". That's what you wrote (Staples example),
> and it's nowhere near the truth.
If I gave that impression, I'm sorry. I know that's not true, and never
meant to imply it. The Staples example was a mental exercise which I
called out as "by that logic, they could..." attempting -- and clearly
failing -- to demonstrate through hyperbole, why such a vague statement
was a slippery slope.
> I suppose if you've got legitimate, non-spam email traffic you plan to
> transact with M. Ibragimov, this could be a problem. Do you _really_
> need to assure yourself the ability to email the Send-Safes of the
It's not that. My concern is that they are taking punitive action --
essentially setting themselves up as a court. What I had thought they
were doing was providing information on the origins of spam, not
attempting to block the mail services of those who are involved with
spamming. As you point out later: bad sysadmin. I should have read more
I'm an anti-blacklist advocate who finally gave up and admitted that I
needed one. I chose one because it didn't list large netblocks for
political reasons, and I was wrong. Doh.
> Linsford, as stated, runs a conservative
> list, necessitated by who it serves. You've apparently misunderstood
> its charter: identifying spamhauser.
> That said, I'd hope your empathy for the send-safe's of the world to be
> pretty muted:
I don't empathize with most criminals, but I worry about the actions
that we take against them. If we, the people with good intentions, erode
the social safeguards about taking punitive action against individuals
and organizations, then we have no one to complain to when action is
taken against us. You know the famous quote that starts, "first they
came for the communists..."
> Memo to the list: if you're going to use a DNSBL, *know its listing
Yeah.... and once again, doh.
> Cerf is a senior officer of the company. You're suggesting he take the
> Kenny Boy Lay defense? "I had no idea what was going on?"
Not at all. I don't advocate or condone blackmailing -- by threat of
public nuisance -- ANY executive of ANY company. I also think Cerf has
earned a bit of extra slack, but that's beside the point.
> > This [going after MCI via Cerf via ACM] is terrorism
> No, it's making a moral example, and asking someone, who really *should*
> be deserving of respect, to take a look at himself in the mirror, and
> decide if he's comfortable living the lie another day.
Ask any monster what they see in the mirror...
I ask you, though -- if someone did this to you, would you consider it
anything but blackmail / terrorism? How would you react? Do you see this
having a positive result?
More information about the linux-elitists